Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Lives at stake

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, January 14, 2011 2:10pm - 78 Comments

The Prime Minister defends the government’s purchase of fighter jets.

“Contracts like this are not a political game,” Harper said, speaking from a blue podium with government Action Plan slogans perched in front of him and behind him. “It is about lives and, as you well know, it is about jobs.”

It is unclear from that report whose “lives” are being invoked in this particular case, but the Prime Minister has in the past invoked the “lives” of Canadian Forces members to defend his procurement policy.

October 27. However, let me tell everyone about the responsibilities we have. We have a responsibility to replace fighter aircraft and not play politics with the lives of our men and women in uniform. We have a responsibility, when it is National Aviation Day, to ensure we protect the people, the men and women who work in that industry, against the irresponsible behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition and his coalition. That is what we will do.

November 17.  The government’s position is clear. It is straightforward. The opposition is simply playing politics with the lives of air force members and with jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry.

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    It's EXACTLY a political game, that's the problem

  • gottabesaid

    I'm worried about whether we're going to get value for our money on these fighter jets. Now, if I question the government's wisdom on this purchase, does that mean I don't care about the lives of Canadian soldiers? Judging by the PM's rhetoric, it sure does. Heck of a way to run a country.

    • McC_

      how dare you consider endangering Canadian Focers men and women by abandoning them to use their existing equipment until the end of its scheduled service life while you would carefully evaluate the options for replacing that equipment. For shame gottabesaid, for shame.

      • danby

        If he really cared about the lives of Canadian soldiers, he'd change his name to gottabesilent

        • Holly Stick

          Yep. All those Canadians driving along roads in Afghanistan and hoping not to be blown up will feel much safer knowing there will be big fast planes in the future flying over the survivors of bombings on the ground.

  • JamesHalifax

    Given the age of our current jets, lives are at stake. Would anyone want their family to be driving around in a 30 year old car?

    what if the roads are slippery? What if someone is shooting at them?

    People died because of Jean Chretiens (and the Liberal Party's) decisions made for political gain (helo's)……one should not be surprised the Liberals and Mikey Ignatieff are willing to do it again.

    • gottabesaid

      Of course, James, the question isn't whether we need new jets… it's whether we need THESE new jets, to the exclusion of all other jets that might fit the bill. You're mischaracterizing the debate.

      • JamesHalifax

        gottabesaid:

        This is a fifth generation fighter….the best there is. The next best jets are fourth generation…lacking stealth and software packages available in the F-35.
        Remember, there are very few companies capable of making these fighters. There was a competition, and the F-35 was deemed best. (the Liberals agreed when they were in power..only changing their minds recently)

        If there is a concern, it should be the guarantee that the prices won't escalate further, and that we'll get them on time.

        • McC_

          you mean "fifth generation ™ fighter" it's a registered trade mark for pete's sake.

        • gottabesaid

          "If there is a concern, it should be the guarantee that the prices won't escalate further, and that we'll get them on time."

          You mean you have a concern? Don't you care about the lives of our troops? (See how handy that little zinger is when you don't want to answer questions about something?)

          Check these stories out when you get a chance, if you haven't already.
          http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=6597

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          There was a competition, and the F-35 was deemed best. (the Liberals agreed when they were in power..only changing their minds recently)

          Good Lord will that spin of what happened never end?

          There was an American competition in 2001 between Boeing and Lockheed Martin prototypes to see who would get the contract to design the new JSF. Canada joined the development program to get the economic and technological benefits of the development program but had NO ROLE in choosing which company would get the development contract. Canadian officials learned about the U.S. decision on T.V. when it was announced, just like everyone else. They also made it explicit, on more than one occasion, that signing on to the development program did NOT in ANY WAY commit us to buying the F-35, and promised a competitive bid process when it came time to choose the F-18 replacement (a commitment I'm sure many people figured would only be fulfilled if the Tories got in to office somehow!)

          If we're going to talk about recent changes of mind that ACTUALLY HAPPENED I can point you to several quotes from Defence Minister Peter MacKay INSISTING that an open and competitive bid process was going to be followed for this procurement. He even said it right on the floor of the House of Commons. Even if the Liberals HAD committed us to the F-35 almost ten years ago (which they didn't) the TORY Defence Minister promised us a competitive bidding process as recently as May of 2010. Was MacKay simply unaware that the Liberals had already commited us 9 years earlier?

          If there are any other areas of public policy where the vague implication of the actions of the Chretien government in 2001 (even if explicitly and repeatedly denied by the government of the day) can trump the publicly made commitment of a Harper Cabinet Minister in 2010, I'm sure the Liberals would appreciate knowing about that.

          • McC_

            well said

        • Mike T.

          They US won't sell us the best there is. When we send our soldiers, (often our loved ones, family and friends) into combat, they will be at greater risk because our closest ally wanted to keep information proprietary.

    • bennji1977

      You are correct, I wouldn't want my family members to be driving around in a 30 year old car.

      With that being said, I would also expect that my family members would be responsible and make sure that they have shopped around, compared prices, referred to consumer reports to make sure they weren't buying a lemon, and most importantly, not spend beyond their means.

      So yes, I believe that the CF needs new planes; however, I think that our government is buying a shiny new toy rather than something that is required by the Air Force.

      • JamesHalifax

        Bennji1977….

        Canada did shop around. In fact, when the LIberals were in power…they did the shopping. They picked the F-35. They are only changing their mind now to score some political points and steal votes from the NDP.

        As for having shiny new toys………why do you think our Air Force should settle for second best?

        We got enough of second best from previous governments. If you recall….we were sent to fight a desert war…wearing jungle camo gear. We were driving on roads laden with IED's in the Iltis jeep. Etc..etc..etc…

        Anyone who has any respect for the Armed Forces wouldn't be voting Liberal.

        • bennji1977

          Actually, when the Liberals signed up for further exploration of the F-35 development – they were clear that it was not a commitment to purchase them.

          Now before you say that the 5 million commitment to R & D phase would have been a waste if there no intention to buy or develop ….. name me one successful company that does not invest heavily in R & D. And of those companies, do all of the products come to market?

          I do not think that our forces need the best product on the market – I think that they need the best equipment to meet their needs. Keep in mind that even our friends in the Forces were caught off guard with the announcement as they were quite prepared to enter in an open procurement process.

          Finally, I am not sure how you can be so convinced that the are the best planes available to us when they haven't even been built or tested yet. Heck for all we know the US DOD may pull the plug on the whole project due to cost overruns……then where the heck will our forces be?

          • Holly Stick

            They're the best planes for us to have to fill the Americans' needs. The Harper Conservatives do not care about Canadians' needs. Blasted sycophants.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Canada did shop around. In fact, when the LIberals were in power…they did the shopping. They picked the F-35. .

          STOP SAYING STUFF LIKE THAT!!! IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!

          Ugggh, that one's been driving me NUTS!!!

          • Mike T.

            It's like saying Paul Martin ignored a non-confidence vote in 2006.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I'd actually say that the Paul Martin line is actually more accurate. At least there WAS a confidence vote in 2006.

    • McC_

      If the CF-18s are so dangerous at this age, then why has this government contracted to keep them serviced until 2017 with an option to extend to 2020? http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-e…

      • JamesHalifax

        McC_

        Simple……we won't be getting new jets before 2017. The option to extend is simply to ensure our Air Force has something to fly around in case the F-35 deal hits an impasse or delay.

        common sense really. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        The service contracts for the CF-18 jets are being synchronized with the delivery of the F-35 jets that will replace them.

        • McC_

          or presumably with the deliver of any other replacement jet that's currently on the market, right? I mean the CF-18 isn't dangerous now, right? or we'd ground them immediately and lease some SuperHornets from the U.S. or something, right? Because lives are at stake!

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I'm not sure what the present-day risks are with the CF-18, but I imagine they're still relatively safe. Aircraft have finite lifespans, though, so they won't always be safe to fly.

            Canada's geriatric Sea King helicopter fleet was flown for years even though the Sea Kings were demonstrably unsafe. We didn't ground the fleet because we didn't have the aircraft to replace them.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      You realize that your family's going to be driving around in that car until 2016 regardless, and that many members of your family will still be using it in 2020, right?

      The question isn't "why are we committing to get new jets", the question is "Why are we committing to get THESE new jets over 5 years before we'll take delivery (if you actually believe we'll start taking delivery in 2016), at least a year before we needed to make any commitment, and without holding a competition for the contract?

      Frankly, I'll be SHOCKED if we start taking delivery of our F-35s in 2016 at the price the current government is advertising so personally I'm quite certain we'll still be flying plenty of F-18s well past 2016, even under the Tory plan.

    • Al O'Wishes

      Would anyone want their family to be driving around in a 30 year old car?

      what if the roads are slippery? What if someone is shooting at them?

      I'm not really sure… if I was in this position, I'd be a bit more concerned about the constant gunfire on the perpetually slippery streets to worry about the age of my car. But I guess I'd take a look around and find a car that could handle these things combined with the most likely potentials expected for the longest time at the best price, maybe go to a few dealers and take a few test rides.

      Of course, the topic here is Harper buying jets outside of the normal procurement method without any sort of remotely rational reason, resorting to using the troops as a political shield, and accusing the Liberals of playing politics. Strawman arguments like this don't really help further the debate.

    • BCer in Mtl

      Comparing cars to military hardware is specious. The aircraft are designed for a specific service like (hours / cycles) and are maintained much more stringently than the average car; they effectively have servive lives of 20 yrs or more, with lifecycle extensions provided by major heavy maintenance (including major airframe components replacement, propulsions and systems upgrades). You are making them sound like US built cars still tootling around Havana, held together with chicken wire.

      But, if you want to keep on that line of argument, you should alert the Americans, they are flying over 60 B-52's, the last of which was built in the early 60's.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Unfortunately, Canada actually has a history of endangering the lives of military pilots by forcing them to fly unsafe aircraft due to poor procurement decisions. Consider the infamous Sea King helicopters. Here's an excerpt from a ten year old report on the Sea Kings:

    The Sea Kings currently need over thirty man hours for every one hour in the air, excluding the time that is spent on major overhauls at the contractors due to antiquated technology. A review of Canadian defence spending in 2000 by the Military Affairs and Defence Committee concluded, “. . . each and every one [Sea King] is an accident
    waiting to happen.”

    Twelve of the original forty-one Sea Kings have crashed, including the ditching of one of the aircraft in the Pacific Ocean off Hawaii during a training exercise last summer. Between 1967 and 1994, seven crew were killed in eleven Sea King crashes. The remaining twenty-nine Sea Kings require extensive maintenance and are prone to breakdowns.

    In a scathing letter to Prime Minister Chretien in March, 2000, retired Lt. -Col. Laurie Hawn wrote: “Sir, I hope for their sake that your legacy will not be blood-stained by the loss of loyal aircrews in the Sea King, during the years when they should have been serving us in their new aircraft,"

    http://www.cda-cdai.ca/cdai/uploads/cdai/2009/04/…

    There were even more Sea King crashes in the years after this report was written. In February 2003, a Sea King crashed on the deck of the HMCS Iroquois. An engine had stalled just after takeoff and the problem was traced to a inlet air vein screw. Later that year, the whole fleet was grounded after two aircraft lost power within days of each other. In 2006, another Sea King crashed of the coast of Denmark.

    • bennji1977

      It is interesting that you site the fiasco of the Sea Kings. Unfortunately the government has learned little from the process as they are going down the exact same path.

      Recall the 2010 AG's report when she outlined some of the shortcomings of the process……
      http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oa…

      The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        The AG outlined shortcomings of the CH-148 Cyclone procurement process, but it has nothing to do with endangering the lives of pilots, which was my point above.

        The lives of pilots were endangered in the 1990s and 2000s because the EH-101 contract to replace the Sea Kings was cancelled for political reasons. There was no alternative plan to replace these geriatric, problem-ridden helicopters, which Canada originally purchased in 1963. Pilots had to keep flying these risky, crash-prone aircraft for another two decades.

      • JamesHalifax

        bennji1977 wrote:
        "It is interesting that you site the fiasco of the Sea Kings. Unfortunately the government has learned little from the process as they are going down the exact same path."

        Actually benjii….go back and read what you wrote again. Tell me if you see your error?

        No?

        I'll help you out. It's was not the Government that cancelled the Sea Kings….it was the Opposition Liberal Party that made and kept that promise. As a result of that Liberal promise……..members of our Air Force have died. Some were injured.

        Today, it is once again the Opposition Liberal Party making a promise to cancel the fighter jets required by members of the Canadian Air Force. I have no doubt they'll keep that promise too. And once again, the results of the Liberal Party cancelling military procurements for political gain will be paid for with the lives of our men and women in the military.

        As I said before…anyone who actually gives a damn about the Canadian military…..doesn't vote Liberal.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      I agree that lives are at stake if we try to keep flying the F-18 past 2020, but my impression has always been that what Harper is saying here is that lives are at stake not just if we fail to replace the F-18, but if we fail to replace the F-18 specifically with the F-35. EXTREMELY few people are arguing that we don't need new fighters, the question is do we need to commit to these planes, right now, and without holding a competition first?

      To me, Harper is saying "If we buy something other than the F-35, Canadian pilots will die as a result", and I'm just not convinced. I'm also ABSOLUTELY not convinced that holding a competition will kill any Canadian pilots. Do you suppose Harper believes that if we hold a competitive process but still decide to buy the F-35 that that would kill Canadian pilots?

      • Crit_Reasoning

        I'm making a very limited point here about the Sea Kings. I wasn't trying to make some sort of larger point about the F-35s purchase process, nor was I commenting on what Harper said.

        Since you asked, I agree with his first quote: it is indeed about both lives (of pilots) and jobs. I strongly disagree with Harper's third quote. I don't think that the opposition is "playing politics with the lives of air force members". I would only think that if the opposition was saying that the CF-18's shouldn't be replaced at all, and they're not saying that. Whatever the merits of a competitive process, it certainly wouldn't kill pilots.

        With regards to my point about the Sea King fiasco, I believe that the Chretien government played politics with the lives of pilots back in the 1990s. Hopefully this mistake will never be repeated in the future, regardless of which party is in power.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Thanks. I kinda figured that was your point wrt the Sea Kings, and point taken. I think we're largely on the same page on this issue.

          • Mike T.

            Out of interest, does the military have the authority to say that a certain vehicle falls below standard and cannot be used and so a specific task cannot be safely executed, or is that up to the members of a political party, or Ministry staff?

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Fair point. I presume no one HAD to fly the Sea King – that the brass wouldn't theoretically let them fly if they weren't safe enough to fly, and I'm CERTAIN that decision isn't up to the politicos. Then again, one thing the Sea King was used for was S&R, so the cost-benefit analysis of letting a dodgy chopper go up is a bit different if there are people in trouble in the middle of the Atlantic.

          • madeyoulook

            That cost-benefit analysis ABSOLUTELY should factor in the likelihood that sending a Sea King merely increases the number of persons requiring rescue.

            I remember a nicely worded first aid rule from my Boy Scout days on electrocutions: Don't touch the victim if he's still holding / touching a live wire — you'll just double the work of someone else.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            That's a good point, but I think my point remains valid as well, in general, that being simply that for a military helicopter there are likely times when it would be deemed important to fly a mission even if normally, for a civilian aircraft in a civilian context, you wouldn't go up in that aircraft. What I meant to get at was simply that it's not as easy as suggesting that the Sea King issue wasn't REALLY a big problem, in that if they were really that dangerous we could have just grounded them all.

    • McC_

      No argument from me that this was a shameful situation that still has not been resolved.

    • Jenn_

      I certainly believe we've learned our lesson. Military equipment has a shelf life, and it isn't like carpeting or something.

      However, proper procurement policies (which is what we are in fact talking about) has nothing to do with whether or not a government uses them. For that matter, neither does the most offhand, fly-by-night procurement methods.

      Yet another bait and switch, since I don't think anyone is questioning the need to procure replacement aircraft.

  • http://unambig.com/ MarkOttawa

    Some serious facts here,

    "F-35s for our Air Force in 2016? Really?" http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=70

    and here via "Aviation Week and Space Technology"; http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39…

    Mark
    Ottawa

  • Dale D.

    The PM has still failed to identify what mission these aircraft will be used for.

    The era of dogfighting is over (unless we go to war with China).

    What Canada needs is search and rescue and close air support aircraft (like the A-10 Warthog).

    Running ground attacks with stealth aircraft in states with no organized military is just about the dumbest and most expensive way to blow something up.

    • Emily

      LOL I agree….search and rescue, transport…no fighter planes.

      No dogfights even with China….they have missiles.

      Just a huge waste of money.

    • Emily

      LOL I agree….search and rescue, transport…no fighter planes.

      No dogfights even with China….they have missiles.

      Just a huge waste of money.

    • Holly Stick

      It's for photo-ops, silly. So the man-boys in the Conservative government can play dress-up as fighter pilots.

    • Emily

      ping

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I just wanted to reiterate outside of the comment threads that people REALLY need to stop perpetuating the lie that "the Liberals chose the F-35 back in the day and only changed their minds recently" and similar nonsense. It simply not true, and everyone knows it.

    Here's the most glaring evidence for the falseness of this claim. Stephen Harper became Prime Minister in January of 2006. The first F-35 rolled off the assembly line in FEBRUARY of 2006. The first flight of an F-35 was TEN MONTHS LATER!!!

    Everyone who's been doing so needs to stop pretending that the Liberals chose the F-35 as the replacement for the F-18 more than a year before the F-35's first flight. It's not just dishonest, it's SILLY.

    • madeyoulook

      Wait a minute. The charge I recall is that Canada under a Liberal government joined in on developing the F-35 together with allies, with a view to a later purchase.

      If that's the case, then the debate can swirl around how contractually obligated Canada was to follow through with orders later (probably not much), or how it might be a good idea to see the project through with the allies (getting at least a bit warmer). But if the Liberals were in on the concept and the design phase, your sequence of Harper-as-PM vs. assembly-line-roll-off is pointless. OF COURSE the Liberal involvement would have been before the first flight.

    • Holly Stick

      Dishonest and silly – which political partisans does that remind you of?

    • Passing by

      Good heavens. Why would Canada's right wing stop perpetuating a lie that makes them feel good, and skews the debate against their enemy? Just because it's untrue? Personally, I doubt this would in itself be sufficient cause for them to abandon a politically useful lie.

  • canon70

    Does anyone know why we need 65 jets? Why not 50, 75 or 25?

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      To me, I feel like 65 means we're also planning on investing in drones which, frankly, is probably a good idea. 65 just seems low to me.

      But who knows? They could have pulled the number out of a hat.

    • madeyoulook

      "O-65! Under the O… Sixty-five!"

      …was the first number called at the bingo game that night?

  • Holly Stick

    Lots of good information and links about the F-35s here:
    http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post…

    Including this one:
    http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2010/12/dissectin…

  • http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/ MarkOttawa

    Quite.

    Mark
    Ottawa

  • JamesHalifax

    Thanks for the Link Holly……..

    One can always expect accurate information from a Blog Site that prominently displays a LIBERAL logo. Oy, vey.

    I can' t wait for you to direct us to the link on how to bring peace to the middle east. I'm assuming your link would direct us to the website for "Palestine House" or CAIR.

    sheesh.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      For the first four and a half years of the Tory's government they had basically the exact same policy on this file as the Liberals. Until sometime this past summer, Liberal and Tory policy was basically identical vis-a-vis the F-35

      It's not Holly's fault that the Tories have reversed themselves and now plan to break an oft-repeated promise to hold an open and transparent competition to determine to whom this procurement contract should go.

  • JamesHalifax

    As for the F-35 and the Liberals.

    If you don't think the F-35 would have been ordered if the LIberals were in Government….you're deluded. That being said, I'll tell you why it is the only logical solution.

    The competition was held between American Firms…and for good reason. They make the best planes, and it was American firms that offered up the goods. One was chosen over the other…the F-35. Fifth generation. Aside from showing the most promise, here is why the Liberals planned on getting it, and why the Conservatives are going to follow through with the Liberal committment.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Again, The F-35 never went up against ANYONE in a competition. It certainly didn't do so while the Liberals were in power given that it HADN'T COME OFF THE ASSEMBLY LINE YET. You're talking about the competition between two prototypes (the X-35 and the X-32) to determine which company would get to design and build the eventual F-35, not a competition involving the actual F-35 (which wouldn't come off of the assembly line until 2006, five years after the initial prototype competition between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and almost a full year after the Tories took office).

      What you're suggesting is that it would make sense to commit to replacing your family's 30 year old car with a concept car from the Detroit Auto Show without even knowing if the company is going to successfully get the car to production.

      Maybe the F-35 is nevertheless the beast choice for our Forces. That's hardly the point, given that the Liberal AND Tory governments BOTH promised taxpayers an open, transparent competition for this contract, on numerous occasions, as recently as May of 2010. I don't think it's so shocking that we might expect them to keep that promise.

      • JamesHalifax

        LordKitchenersOwn wrote:
        "You're talking about the competition between two prototypes (the X-35 and the X-32"

        Umm….I don't really think I need to explain to you that this is how these things work do I?

        I'll give you the cliff notes version. A company (or companies) doesn't create an entire fleet of aircraft for a competition. They create ONE. That way, they don't waste money. The prototype chosen……was the one to be re-named the F-35. Few changes..yes, and probably a few more after this.

        It was a competition. Your refusal to recognize it…..is your failing, not mine.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          It was a competition, sure. It just wasn't a competition involving the F-35, and it wasn't a competition that Canada had anything to do with.

          • JamesHalifax

            The X-35……is the name for the F-35 prototype.

            But hey….at least you admitted there was a competition. (and yes, the Liberals were involved in potential agreements, as evidenced by the financial contribution) They're backing out now…because they're trying to steal votes from the NDP and Bloc. Simple as that.

            baby steps.

        • BCer in Mtl

          That is just completely missing the point.

          F35 is ONE possible replacement aircraft.

          What is needed here in Canada is a good understanding of what our needs are for the life cycle of a replacement aircraft, taking into account our defence commitments, our foreign policy plans and industrial strategy and competetive advantages. Guaranteed there wil lbe tradeoffs between them.

          But the point is that a competition needs be held and managed by Canada with respect to Canadian needs, with the available technologies traded off against each other.

          What is happening here is a wholesale policy change which appears to have been concocted on the back of a cocktail napkin.

  • JamesHalifax

    Spare Parts. – would you rather order spares and maintenance from your neighbour, or would you prefer to have the shipped from Europe?
    What if you're in a war. Would you rather have your planes serviced by those fighting alongside of you, or would you rather wait until the European manufacturer sends their team? What if they didn't want to show up?

    Fuel. – US and Canadians have MOU's to provide fuel for each other in theatre, and given the US will be flying the same planes…fuel is interchangeable. No special additives, delivery methods, etc.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Spare Parts. – would you rather order spares and maintenance from your neighbour, or would you prefer to have the shipped from Europe? What if you're in a war.

      What if the war you're in isn't in North America, but in Europe?

      • JamesHalifax

        If there was a war in Europe…and we were involved, there is a good change the company who made the aircraft would also be in a state of war. Subject, I might add……to bombing runs and hostilities of our shared enemies.

        I'll throw this back at you as well…..if there was a war in Europe, where would you rather have your manufacturing plant. In Europe…during a state of war….or in North America?

        Clearly, you didn't think before you hit the submit button.

        If you still don't see what I'm getting at……..please never join our military.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          That's classic. First you say we'd better stick with a North American partner, cause we'll need parts fast (if there's a war in N. America). THEN you say that we'll be glad our manufacturing plants in N. America (if there's a war in Europe). It's flawless logic. If there's a war here, it's a good thing our parts are close by. If there's a war there, it's a good thing our parts manufacturing plants are far away.

          BRILLIANT.

          Clearly, I didn't think before I hit the submit button.

    • BCer in Mtl

      "Would you rather have your planes serviced by those fighting alongside of you, or would you rather wait until the European manufacturer sends their team? What if they didn't want to show up?"

      OK, Thats just plain silly. Whatever aircraft we order, you do realize that part of any aircraft purchase includes maintenance training? Do you think every time a Boeing or Airbus needs maintenance that Air Canada or Westjet get on the phone and arrange for a manufacturer to come fix it?

      As for the fuel, would it not make sense that the propulsion and fuel systems are designed to be able to use various grades of jet fuel? Its not like a Eurofighter or SAAB use different fuels, any more than a Ford pickup uses different fuel than a Mini Cooper.

      Stop making nonsensical arguments, and come up with something a bit more thought out, using actual facts.

      • JamesHalifax

        BCer in Mtl wrote:
        "OK, Thats just plain silly. Whatever aircraft we order, you do realize that part of any aircraft purchase includes maintenance training?"

        Great…glad you understand that part. Please write the Liberals and tell them the costs for maintenance and servicing are included. They always forget to mention that when they say we're paying 16Billion for the jets.

        • JamesHalifax

          BCer in Mtl again:
          "Do you think every time a Boeing or Airbus needs maintenance that Air Canada or Westjet get on the phone and arrange for a manufacturer to come fix it? "

          Clearly, you don't understand the difference in complexities when it comes to armed fighter jets and jumbo jets. There are many techs who can fix a standard jumbo jet…they are all very similar. Fighter jets are a different matter.

          Fuel – you are wrong BCer. There are many different types of fuel, true….but to get the performance needed for the F-35, there are certain additives that are required. You're anaology of a ford and mini-cooper….doesn't help your cause.

          As for my arguments not making sense………..I am forced once again to state that your lack of understanding is not my failing, it is yours.

  • JamesHalifax

    Jobs – How many jobs do you think would be created for Canadians in Europe? How do you think our Aeorospace firms would feel about that? Politics…..sure, but this is Canada. What did you expect.

    The reasons for the F-35 are quite simple.

    1. Canada doesn't make fighter jets.
    2. Canada needs fighter jets.
    3. Quality – the competition for the new fighter was held in the US by US firms. The best plane won.
    4. Logisitics – It will be easier to maintain our new planes as spare parts, expertise, and fuel are readily available. Our combat software is the same, or very similar to our US allies.

    • BCer in Mtl

      1. No, but through 'Industrial Benefits' we have traditionally made major components of the aircraft we buy. With the F35 we apparently haven't negotiated any such guarantees, BUT, we are allowed to bid on contracts. Well, I think I'll just go buy me a 6-49 ticket, its the same thing.__2. Yes, but what are the specific needs to support our defence & foreign policy goals. And don't give us that bollocks about the 'Canada First' policy, that's nothing more than a slogan__3. The competition was for specific US needs, including STOL and Carrier landing capability, with the inherent design compromises for that (Canadian application – Northern defence, some foreign missions)

      • JamesHalifax

        BCer in Mtl.
        I'll respond to your comments in kind.
        1. Canadian Aerospace firms do have tentative agreements in place, with more being discussed. As for the 6-49 ticket….go for it. Based on your comments so far you have a better chance of winning that….than of winning this argument.
        2. Our specific needs for fighters have not really changed. The only difference is we're getting a better fighter with a better weapons load, improved combat softare, and stealth to boot. Prepare for the worst…by buying the best.

        • JamesHalifax

          3. The specific US needs also fit very well with Canadian needs. We don't have carriers, but we are benfitting by the other attributes previously descrived in my 2.
          4. Military fleet logistics. Hmm…..I daresay I know far more about it than you, though if you want to keep pretending you know what you are talking about, then by all means….continue embarassing yourself. As for the widespread availablitiy of parts and components….don't you think it would be beneficial of Canada was included in that list?
          5. That fact you are not familiar with a basic component such as aircraft fuel…..makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time trying to explain any of this to you.

    • BCer in Mtl

      Continued . ..
      3 (cont'd) we won't have those capabilities, but will carry the weight & performance penalties associated with making the common design support those capabilities. The classic definition of 'quality' is 'conformamce to requirements' – how does the F35 conform to our requirements (what are our requirements anyways? no one has said) as compared to other platforms? well we could have competitive bidding to find out, n'est-ce pas?
      4. Military fleet logistics are so much more complicated than for your Dell Laptop, there are multiple sources involved to minimize acquisition and inventory costs. Do you think the air force calls up a 1-800 number to get spares? In any case the suppliers for F35 might be worldwide, the components typically requiring replacement are propulsion, mechanical parts or electronics made by suppliers to L-M. Fuel – well any military aircraft needs to be flexible on that, so nit sure why you cite that as a selling point

  • JamesHalifax

    The Liberals know this and the Conservatives know this. The Conservatives are going ahead with the purchase because they know it is the best and most logical conclusion given the facts. The Conservatives are doing what is right for Canada, and the Canadian Forces. Not a surprise.

    The Liberals know that going ahead with this purchase is the most logical solution….but hey, they need to steal NDP and Bloc support prior to an election. The Liberals are doing what is good for the Liberals and the Liberal Party. Again…not a surprise.

    Hope that clears it up for you.

Previous

Next

From Macleans